tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post5085393995356309282..comments2023-11-02T08:42:23.947+00:00Comments on The Subversive Archaeologist: And The Winner Is... Biface!thesubversivearchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-704879849182893152013-01-19T02:22:31.987+00:002013-01-19T02:22:31.987+00:00I wholeheartedly concur. [Was that stating the obv...I wholeheartedly concur. [Was that stating the obvious?] thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-65806834289970902472013-01-19T02:20:27.052+00:002013-01-19T02:20:27.052+00:00The challenge is to take those accounts and insigh...The challenge is to take those accounts and insights and build then into a methodology (or mid-range theory) for looking at stone use across a landscape and of course through time. This I think was the ultimate goal of Binford's work and why those papers from the 1980's are so insightful in throwing up challenges to the typological approach to stone (I'm desperately trying not to say stone tools here because as soon as I do I'm trapped by the typological approach. <br /><br />But what happened? I don't think the challenge was ever accepted. There is still an awful lot of emphasis on Biface Axes, Horsehoof cores and "microliths" as the focus of analysis and understanding. But where are the new forms of analysis? Things seems the same as when I was doing my first degree in the 1970's.<br /><br />I am happy to be proven wrong though. <br /> IainShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325890799477789627noreply@blogger.com